File Format:

Adobe Reader

Tom Dougherty and Larry Schweiger – National Wildlife Federation
Interview on January 17, 2008
Jennifer Jones -- JJ
Larry Schweiger -- LS
Tom Dougherty -- TD
Mark Madison -- MM
JJ -- And he said, “Do not expect anyone to do the job for you. If you want coordination it is up to you. If you want an annual conference of federated wildlife interests that is also your privilege.” So can you speak to how this concept of a federation of wildlife interests has been a unique instrument in the efforts to protect wildlife, and wildlife habitat?
LS – Well, I think for me personally, Darling understood, probably better than anyone, that wildlife did not have a vote in congress; did not have a vote in the voting booth; did not have a voice in America -- without someone giving voice to that. And he also understood that people get together in groups, particularly local groups, and the need to consolidate all these local voices into a single movement was, I think, uniquely ‘Ding’s’ vision. He once said that ‘a thousand stallions, unconnected, could not move a baby carriage.’ To me, that’s the vision of thousands of these local groups out there, all trying to get something done, but not being connected. And so, the connection, in his mind, was the National Wildlife Federation.
JJ -- And he really did, just, spawn this Federation, where so many groups that were, just, in their own small little pockets, decided to come together and really be the voice of wildlife.
TD -- You know, the ‘Dirty ‘30’s.’ I mean, that era when all of this transpired. I mean … following the Dust Bowl, and lots of things, that had a tremendous impact on wildlife. One of which was over harvesting by hunters, you know, ‘cause we were starting to urbanize. And in the rural communities, you know, the wildlife was there for them. And so with the advent of the science -- and wildlife science had come forward -- recognize it -- we could no longer over harvest. So a lot of these unconnected thousand stallions were organized at a very grassroots level that - sometimes even at a state level. In fact, many of our affiliates are older than National Wildlife Federation -- under the veil of ‘New Mexico Game Protectors Association,’ or whatever. And ‘Ding’ Darling recognized a bunch of under-utilized potential at the grassroots, and saw the need to harness those groups and organizations to effect federal legislation. And to effect, you know, big, big tasks -- like Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and, you know, “speak for the ducks,” which was a famous quote of his. And he was seeing it happen at a local level -- whether it was
1
New Mexico or New Hampshire -- but it wasn’t extending, it wasn’t reaching as far as where it needed to, to effect federal legislation and federal laws.
JJ -- And that’s what he was really talking about when he said ‘you can’t expect anyone to do the job for you,” in terms of protecting what you really care about. You have to organize together as a federation to make it happen.
LS – Well, I think Tom makes a really good point. That ‘Ding’ was actually looking at the big picture of things. He was not, you know, they could do the little things alone, but if you want to do the really big things, you had to get together to do that. And that’s what he was talking about, looking at some pretty big opportunities in those days to really make a huge difference for wildlife. And so he was inspired by the big things, and wanted them to work together to achieve those big things. And so, I think it really was gathering groups of concerned hunters, anglers, and others -- and it was ‘others’ -- there were a lot of ‘others’ that ‘Ding’ had in mind – together, to make a difference for wildlife in a major way.
JJ -- So, what about those ‘big things’? You know, when you think about it, and all the years that National Wildlife Federation has been America’s conservation organization, what about those ‘big things’ that really couldn’t have happened without this federated approach to protecting wildlife?
LS – Well, if you look at ‘Ding’s’ original artwork, you see a lot of what was going on in his mind. For example, in 1949 he did a cartoon that showed the planet running out of oil -- you know -- with the big oil derrick on top of the planet, spurting oil. And he also understood the implications -- not the way we understand them today -- but certainly implications of energy development. And [the] National Wildlife Federation was one of those lead organizations in reforming mining in America. The Mining Act of 1977 was a thing that the Federation did; the various waterfowl programs; and, you know, the Duck Stamp itself; the Dingle / Johnson / Pittman / Roberts Act; those were all Acts that were initiated by ‘Ding’ Darling, and by the Federation.
JJ -- And there was a lot of effort, from the very beginning, on endangered species. Like, initially, it was the Florida key deer; and then it was the Kodiak bear; and then the grizzly; and just a long, long list of species that were threatened, that National Wildlife Federation … You know, Thomas Allen talks about the organization as the wildlife sentinel. [It] really is the organization that’s been standing at the post for endangered and threatened species, from the very beginning.
LS – Oh, the original Endangered Species Act was, you know, an effort of the National Wildlife Federation, along with some key lawmakers --
2
Congressman Dingle, for example -- still here, was one of the key leaders behind that. The Marine Mammals Act. The Alaska Lands program. I mean, you can just go on and on over the years. Each generation had its own successes, and each generation contributed to the overall fabric of what we have today, in terms of wildlife and conservation programs.
JJ -- You know I find it really interesting that he used the term “privilege” when he said, “If you want an annual conference of federated wildlife interests that is also your privilege.” What … how do you feel about that term “privilege” in terms of the way that he spoke about it?
LS – Well, Darling understood that the ‘right of assemblage’ was a privilege that we have as Americans. And he understood that, just as we have a ‘right of free speech,’ we have a ‘right of assemblage.’ And that ‘right of assemblage’ was an important part of our constitution. And an important gift that we have, as people who live in a democratic system. And it’s a privilege that we have, frankly, have ignored in recent years. The assemblage of Americans together is something that’s on the wane. And it’s a sad moment, because it’s really important, to have a healthy country, to bring people together to hammer out … to solve problems, to gather together, to be of one voice. Those are all very important concepts that underpin the nature of a federation. And certainly of this Federation.
JJ -- And that’s really been successful over the years. I’m sure … you’ve been to how many annual meetings where all of the affiliates come together and speak in one voice in the whole process, in terms of resolutions, and setting the policy for the organization? That’s really acting on the ‘right of assembly’ I would imagine, yes?
TD -- I’ve often said that in Webster’s, or Funk and Wagnall Dictionary, when the … look up word “federation” they should actually have a picture of [the] National Wildlife Federation, because it’s the easiest way to explain what a federation is. It has operated as a federation -- as clunky as that may have been for staff members or Board members -- that assemblage of those grassroots entities, in helping formulate -- not helping formulate -- formulating the conservation policy of the organization, has been, you know, a fundamental principle of being born at the grassroots level, through this assemblage, through this privilege of assemblage, of all of these organizations, whether they be necessarily hunting -- and they largely are hunting and angling organizations – [or] state organizations that primarily focus on the conservation of wildlife, and they come and formulate that policy, that then National Wildlife Federation staff and Board are directed to implement in a pretty … as well as the affiliates themselves. I mean, it doesn’t leave them out of the equation. It isn’t ‘here, this is for you, go make this happen.’ They have those responsibilities at the grassroots level. So even though the idea, a policy idea that was born in Colorado -- game ranching or something like that -- then it spreads a
3
message to these other state affiliates that are having similar problems. And, quite honestly, most of the really great impacts of this assemblage of organizations at the grassroots level is the by-product as it goes into these other states. A lot of times it spills over. I can’t really think of a piece of national legislation that has occurred since 1960 that National Wildlife Federation didn’t have its fingerprints all over. And in some cases we wrote it. Now, that’s not to say there wasn’t other organizations, there wasn’t other entities; but me being a westerner, certainly Federal Land Management Policy Act -- FLPMA , NEPA -- all of those policies -- NWF basically wrote that stuff. Many of the wilderness actions that took place, had it not been for organizations like Montana Wildlife Federation or Nebraska Wildlife Federation, there wouldn’t have been wilderness in those states. And so, they’ve played a huge role in federal land management and federal land protection, using the tools that were drafted in the ‘60s and ‘70s, of which NWF was … in reality Congress hadn’t … in the state legislatures … in most of the states, if there’s a connection to wildlife or fisheries, the legislative body -- be it Congress or a state legislature -- they don’t move forward without working with either NWF or the state affiliates, because they know that that’s a focus of interest of that group. And many of them are very powerful, and very strong.
JJ -- And very talented in terms of understanding what really needs to happen to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat. Yeah. It’s quite stunning when, you know, you say that everything has National Wildlife Federation’s imprint on it. That’s truly remarkable. I can’t think or another organization that you can say that about. I don’t think there is. You know Larry, I wanted to spend a moment to talk about your life here at National Wildlife Federation. You’ve had a couple of ‘tours of duty’ and now you’re the President and CEO of the organization, so I’m sure that you’ve seen a lot of changes, a lot of things that have changed. And then some core things that might have just stayed the same in terms of how National Wildlife Federation does its work. I was just wondering if you wanted to comment a little bit about, you know, what you’ve seen through the years, in terms of all of the time that you’ve spent with the organization. What’s changed? What’s fundamentally stayed the same about how National Wildlife Federation …?
LS – Well, I think, as I look over my own lifetime with the Federation, my mom and dad were active in our Pennsylvania affiliate, and particularly at the local and regional level, but I think the thing that stayed the same through the years is the volunteers who have been connected with the Federation. I remember as a youngster going to club meeting with my father and mother, and having very lively debates over whether great horned owls ought to be protected, you know, or whether there ought to be a bounty on red and grey fox, and this sort of thing. And they were very lively and brought people together to talk about these things and, you know, either endorse what the wildlife agencies were recommending, or to ask questions about it, to understand why they were doing that, and to be a part of that process. And at the end of the day, own that outcome. And so I think that’s continued up until today. I think what’s
4
changed is the risk the wildlife face. Today it’s so much greater than it was when I was a youngster. I mean, we saw the beginnings of urban sprawl, and the interstate highway system -- I grew up before the interstate highway system, I was a youngster when that was being planned and actually executed -- so seeing that change was significant for all of us as we saw the landscape change. But today, what we see is, you know, planetary change actually having a huge impact on wildlife. I mean, the most recent science warns that, you know, somewhere between 17 and 39 percent of the species will become extinct, or on the road to extinction, if we allow the temperature on the earth to go up 2.6 degrees centigrade. If we go higher than that, we may see 40 to 70 percent of the total species on the planet become extinct or on the road to extinction. That, to me, is a terrifying thought. And it’s far beyond anything that ‘Ding’ Darling and his peers would have been able to comprehend in their day, because they were looking at the loss of wetlands, and the threats from agricultural mismanagement, and the urban problems, and obviously other things that were related to more localized damage. But, you know, we’re seeing the devastation on a scale that’s unprecedented in human history.
JJ -- It’s really all of that that they saw -- and more.
LS – They did. I mean, they were concerned that we have a comprehensive national and international plan. I mean, ‘Ding’ was working with folks in Mexico, and Canada as well, so they saw the -- particularly for migratory waterfowl -- the need to work together. But, I mean, today, we need to work together with every nation on the planet to solve problems that we’re all creating, and we more than some others.
JJ -- You know, I think also sort of unique to National Wildlife Federation’s history is what Thomas Allen, again in the book The Guardian Of The Wild talks about, the organization’s long standing endorsement of professional wildlife management. The fact that the organization has really worked side by side, not only with the affiliates, but with wildlife managers around the country. I mean, that’s really unique too, in terms of how, you know, the approach that National Wildlife Federation has taken in all the work that it has done at the national level. Is there something you might want to say about our connections with wildlife agencies and the partnerships that we forged over the years, in terms of getting what we’ve gotten done.
LS – Well, ‘Ding’ darling was an interesting person because he was not a wildlife professional himself, but he believed very strongly in the profession of wildlife management, and the notion that good science should be driving our wildlife policy decisions. And we hold to that to this day. I mean we’re relying on the top scientists, whether were talking about climate change, or whether were talking about proper management
5
for a given species. You know, it all comes right down to: is there good science and what does the good science tell us. And therefore, how do we adjust our management strategies, how do we adjust our actions, to insure that that species survives. And we make those judgments based on good science. And so, facts are friendly; the science is our friend. We need to incorporate good science into our decision making. It shouldn’t just be a group of people sitting around deciding, willy-nilly, whether something needs to happen or not. We should really be rooted in, and listing to, the science -- and to the best science that we have available at the time of decision making. So I think it’s very important.
JJ -- So, Tom, talking about best science, when we talk about something that you were involved in, which was … I mean, I remember the moment when we finally were able to convince all the powers that be that wolves could, in fact, be re-introduced into Yellowstone. And that was in 1995 -- 14 wolves from Canada were released into Yellowstone. And you were the only representative from the conservation community that was invited there, to witness the release of these wolves. It must have been just a really amazing moment for you.
TD -- Well, it was. It was one of those ‘once in a lifetime’ moments, and I … I mean, I was invited as a representative of all of the NGOs that had worked on it. And I had become very close with Bruce Babbitt and others that were principally involved in … and Molly Beatty when she was still alive … and it was a very heady moment. And the three states concerned were Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. And, had it not been for the state affiliate organizations in all three of those states acquiescing and saying, you know, that this … there may be political reasons for us not to be jumping up and down with joy over this, it is very important wildlife moment. And they allowed it, and in many cases promoted it to happen. And it was, again, those connections, you know, Larry mentioned -- our promotion of good science, and working very closely with state game and fish agencies. Well, it’s not rocket science. I mean, their constituency is hunters and anglers – they’re the people who buy their license. But it needs to be more, and in this evolving change that’s happening, you know, where the demand for hunting, and angling now, are actually diminishing, the importance of non-game programs and urban wildlife programs are increasing so greatly. So, there’s almost this natural alliance between hunters and anglers, who believe in the conservation of wildlife through the Federation, and with the state game and fish agencies. And so, there’s many, many parallels that exist -- as I said in the very beginning, some of these affiliates were far older -- formed before NWF was. And they were formed, in a large part, through the encouragement of a lot of these state game and fish agencies that needed this grassroots fort. But, you know, there’s been many kind of evolutionary things -- the re-introduction of black-footed ferrets, the re-introduction of wolves -- that wouldn’t have happened had it not been hunters and anglers and National Wildlife Federation, and other conservation organizations, saying, ‘you know, this is the right thing to do. We made a mistake when we eliminated wolves from the Lower 48 states. And now let’s rectify that mistake.’ And, you know, it’s … now people who are not hunters and anglers necessarily, are reaping the benefit of listening to
6
wolves howl in Lamar Valley. And Yellowstone Park is receiving the benefit of being a destination point for people who want to see that.
JJ -- Yeah. Thrilling. I just can’t imagine actually being able to witness it, to hear it. Really, really exciting. You also were really involved with the work to save the whooping crane. Can you talk a little bit about that?
TD -- I was involved and still am involved.
JJ -- A long time, right? 30 years it’s been.
TD -- Yeah, it’s been a long time. Yeah. No … and up ‘till now, that’s been a very successful story. We now have more whooping cranes than we’ve ever had before. But at the same time, Aransas, their destination point, where they spend the winters, is under some terrible, terrible threats of rising sea level. And I had a meeting last week, and more meetings, on, you know, what are we facing here? What are we going to do with whooping cranes? The sand hill cranes which is … have greatly benefited from the whooping crane studies, and we now know more about sand hills than … which is another phenomenal wildlife story, and the Nebraska Wildlife Federation and National Wildlife Federation has been very, very involved in the protection of critical habitats for those species. And will continue to be. And we’re worried to death about Aransas and all that, but we may be at the pinnacle of success -- I hope not, but we may be at this pinnacle of success this year, with whooping cranes.
JJ -- But there was that moment, I really … I have to say, I’ll never forget it, when you showed me that picture of the flock of whooping cranes.
TD -- Oh, yeah!
JJ -- And your face just lit up. That it was so significant. That there was that many flying together. And that was really, just years and years of effort to get to that one moment.
TD -- Yeah. Well, the original program – we’re getting way off -- but the original program, you know, we had surrogates, where sand hill cranes parents would, you know, teach whooping cranes how to fly, and they would fly to some of the same habitats, and wasn’t highly successful because those birds got so imprinted on sand hills that they wouldn’t breed properly. So there was modifications that were made, but that picture, when I saw it, was … and this was a picture of seven, I think, sand hill cranes … or whooping cranes … traveling together - flying together. I think that’s the largest number that they’ve ever seen … of whooping cranes traveling as a unit like that. Yeah, that’s a great picture.
MM -- Did you get the rights to that picture? 7
JJ -- Well, yeah, we, you know, unfortunately, the picture’s not of a quality that we can reproduce at a high …
[Overlapping voices/indecipherable]
TD -- Oh, that’s too bad. Gosh.
[Overlapping voices/indecipherable]
Tom – ‘Cause I think it was … just we started a program on the Platte River called “Whooper Watch.” And this was a little … a lady who was a letter carrier, and so that was … that’s her volunteer job -- is to watch for whooping cranes, ‘cause we need to document that the Platte River is still important habitat for whooping cranes. There’s lots of reasons for that, but … And … so she was a member of this little volunteer program. And she probably had -- like I carry around -- one of those disposable cameras or …
[Overlapping voices/indecipherable]
?? -- Was a great … great picture.
JJ -- It was. And it was wonderful just to get into the email chain, connecting people with her, and everyone just sharing so much excitement about it.
TD -- Yeah. Yeah.
LS – It was very exciting.
JJ -- So there’s probably a lot of very exciting moments in your history here with National Wildlife Federation. I mean, if you can think of about those moments where it was really – “yeah, we finally did it, we finally did it.” Is there anything that really …
LS – There’s so many stories about either National Wildlife Federation or a state affiliate working to make a difference. For example, we were down in Louisiana recently in the Jean Lafitte National Park. It’s an outgrowth of the tenacity of Frank Ararat, one of our volunteers from Louisiana, who just wouldn’t let it alone. I mean, he’s a school teacher and for 24 years he did slide shows all over Louisiana, and finally convinced Senator Bennett Johnson that this needed to happen. And that national park is open now for others to enjoy; and it’s a part of that remnant system that’s in great trouble; because someone made up their mind that they’re going to make it happen. And that, to me, is … the real exciting part, is getting people together who get stubborn about something and just grab onto it and make it happen. And I think, today, we have opportunities to do that. And I always look forward to working
8
with volunteers. And I think that’s the real essence of the Federation, is having those volunteers out there who just give of their own time and energy to make a difference for the future of wildlife. Darling often would say ‘there are two kinds of people in this world -- those who care about wildlife, and those who don’t. And we’re after those who care about wildlife.’ And so, he saw a ‘big tent’, and bringing people together, with the common thread that we care about wildlife. And so, that, to me, is the … it’s a reoccurring story and I hope it continues to reoccur as we move forward, because we certainly need more help today than ever.
JJ -- Yeah. I mean, that vision of the ‘big tent’, I think the organization has really carried that forward in a very significant way, ever since he had the vision. It’s really been sort of the key ingredient of the success of the organization.
LS – The other thing that Darling did, that’s hard to capture today, is that he was a very inspiring, compelling speaker. When he gave his first talk in 1939, in Baltimore, as the new assemblage … and I should tell you that 39 state organizations showed up to be a part of the original incorporation, so within two years they had almost a full complement of state affiliates. But one of the young women in the audience that day was Rachel Carson. And Rachel came into that room as a naturalist. She was, you know she was trained in various schooling, was an employee of the US Fish & Wildlife Service. She was a naturalist up until that point, when she heard ‘Ding’ Darling give that conservation -- very powerful conservation speech -- she turned around and wrote her first -- what I’d call really, you know, on point conservation article, within four days of hearing ‘Ding’ Darling speak. And if you read her writing there, she truly was reflecting what ‘Ding’ Darling had said just a few days before that. So Darling, at that meeting, inspired Rachel Carson to become a much more proactive conservationist. And so, that’s the kind of catalytic personality he had, you know, to get people to do things. And that was his strength.
JJ -- Yeah. That’s really his legacy. And there’s people who have carried that on, in terms of inspiring more and more people to keep, you know, keep fighting the good fight.
LS – Absolutely. Absolutely. And at every one of our annual meetings we ought to be asking the question of the volunteers that come to our meetings, you know, ‘were you inspired by this meeting? Did this, did the people that you heard, and the things that you saw, and the connections that you made here, inspire you to go back and make a greater difference?’ And that’s …that really should be the convening thrust of every one of our gatherings.
9
JJ -- When, you know. when you think about all of the choices that the organization has had to make over the years, in terms of it’s governing structure, and in terms of the decisions it makes about program and policy, and have a magazine / not have a magazine, should we have a kids magazine, you know, all of those really significant choice points along the way, is there any critical juncture that you think the organization came to that really was, like, the moment in time that there was a decision that really was key to the success of the organization, in terms of a policy decision, or choice around program or …
LS – There have been several of those moments. I think, early on, in the days of Tom Kimball, the decision to start the magazines Ranger Rick and National Wildlife, and then later International Wildlife magazine, those decisions and the decision to become a serious organization allowed us to build a staff at the Federation. Because, up until that point, we had only a small handful of employees, and it was when we did that, that we were able to then raise the revenue to start hiring lobbyists, and scientists, and then later lawyers. And I think that was also another decision point. We had Secretary Stewart Udall on our Board, and he believed - very strongly - that we ought to begin to challenge and litigate some of the federal policies that were being advanced in Washington. And some of it was backtracking on some important decisions that had been made earlier. But it was Udall who first argued that we needed to open a field office in the west -- it happened to be in Colorado -- to be a voice for wildlife, and to actually start filing some lawsuits to block some of the bad things that people wanted to do on public lands, and encroaching on wildlife in other places. And I think that was a real turn point. And, you know there are others. And I think over time we’ll see those more clearly. More recent decisions that have been made probably will be seen as turn points as well. I think the Federation, in the 70s, under Doctor Jay Hair, decided to be much more engaged in policies that related to energy, and into policies that related to pollution directly. We were very active in the … in some of the pollution formulation … anti pollution formulation that occurred in the 70s and 80s. But, you know, the Acid Rain Control Bill was one that came out of the Federation’s efforts, because it was a so called ‘cap and trade’ program. That idea originated at the Federation, because we were looking for reasonable way to solve problems without creating another ‘command and control’ program. And I think that’s been transformational. There are just a number of examples like that. And it … gives … you have to have a little time to see the more recent turning points, and how they develop. But I think we’re continuing to find new solutions to old problems. And we’re seeing new ways of operating as an institution.
JJ -- And the piece around the litigation, I think, too, in terms of just the choices that we made around that, in terms of -- what are the lawsuits that we filed, and how involved that we would get in that, have been pretty significant.
10
LS – Absolutely. And Tom knows, in the West, how many of those lawsuits saved really important wildlife habitats. And more importantly, set precedents, and caused the agencies to do things that they otherwise would not be able to do. And this is not the professionals, but the political influence that was occurring at the time. You know, we were able to stave off a lot of damage when Secretary Watt wanted to start backtracking on a lot of important programs in wildlife habitat protection efforts.
JJ -- Tom, can you think of something that, really, you know …
TD -- Well, there are a lot of examples, and there’s a lot of great success stories. If I was to make a general statement it would be conservation organizations and the environmental organizations have basically been fighting a battle in a defensive posture for a long, long time. The great successes that have been made by National Wildlife Federation were offensive in nature. The wolves are an example of that. And choosing to tool up with different tools … anymore, I don’t know how you … you know, how you can be taken seriously without a litigation arm to be able to back it up. National Wildlife Federation has recently endorsed and sponsored the formation of a C-4 organization, to add another tool to its arsenal in which it will advance a lot of its causes in the direct political arena. Ultimately, the way the system works in America today, if you’re not a player in that game, then you’re playing with one arm tied behind your back. And so, when the Federation has advanced in these offensive postures and increasing its arsenal of tools … and you’d asked earlier about the … not only the great successes, but what do you remember most … you know, everybody likes to be around people who think like they do. And being around with the staff and the volunteers in the Federation and their unselfish behavior, as it relates to wildlife, the conservation of wildlife, it … that’s really heady stuff. You’re not going to get rich in the conservation movement. I mean, it’s just not going to happen. And so, there’s something more that’s needed. We have many people on our staff that had they joined the corporate world that would be … would have made their mark financially. And they didn’t do that because they believe in this ideal of giving back to the earth in a better shape than when they came. And the esprit de corps that exists with people who think like you do is not something that you can place a value on, but is very, very real. And it, I think, is what pushes many people through the 20 / 30 / 40 year career in this business. Because it’s … it’s tough. I mean, you face many more disappointments than you do successes. And you just can’t give up. I mean, you just have to stay there and fight the next fight.
JJ -- Yeah. Persistence. You know, in ‘Ding’ Darling’s speech that year, he talked about the wealth of the natural resources, and how foolish we are to think that we … our material wealth is really what will sustain us. That it really is the wealth of the natural resources that brings to us that satisfaction that can only come from the protection of the natural world.
11
LS – Well, I think Americans, particularly, have taken for granted that we have a … just a wonderful collection of extraordinary pieces of real estate. And we have been neglectful, frankly, of those great places. And … but I think, what is so compelling about what Tom said … and Tom incidentally is a great example. I mean, this guy worked for many years as a volunteer, long before he ever got his first paycheck doing this stuff. I mean, he … and he’s retiring here at the end of this month, and I suspect that Tom will not change his pace whatsoever. He’ll just quit getting a paycheck from National Wildlife Federation. So … but, that tells you a lot about the kind of people that are woven into this fabric. And at the end of the day we’re going to be out-funded, we’re going to be out-gunned, in terms of the abilities of these other rascals to put up money. But we can win, because we have these stubborn, absolutely determined people, like Tom, who will not give up the things that they care about. And so passion has a … has a value that runs deeper, and much more powerfully, than some of the slickest ad campaigns you can find. And that’s what we have. We have the caring people with deep passions about wildlife. And it’s their voice, and it’s their willingness to be stubborn about those things that they care about, that will ultimately save the great places that are at risk at this point in time. and it’s that hope of … welling up, that spirit, in so many Americans who do care about nature -- and there are a lot of people who do care -- and so those who care need to come together, and stand firm, and stand forcefully, and be willing to do whatever it takes to get this job done that we have today. And that will be the reinvigoration of this movement, this assemblage, this ‘great tent’ that ‘Ding’ Darling talked about, and so many have followed behind over the years. And that will keep it going.
JJ -- ‘Cause it is that passion. I mean, that’s what’s really contagious.
LS – It is.
JJ -- You just have to be around, you know, at an annual meeting, and you just feel it in your bones, you know, there’s just so much energy and passion for the work, it’s just … I’ve never experienced a setting like that.
LS – And I would say at every annual meeting, and I’ve been to more than I’d like to admit, I go away afterwards … because your adrenalin is so used up, you go away and you have to recover for a couple of days. Because it is that … it is that forceful, and that impactful, as an experience.
JJ -- Yeah. Well, thank goodness.
LS – Yeah.
12
JJ -- That kind of commitment’s there. So, let’s talk a little bit about something, just, we might want to imagine that both of you are sitting together and you’ve decided that you’re going to put together this time capsule and you’re going to bury it somewhere out in one of your favorite places in the wilderness. And you’re each going to put something in there about National Wildlife Federation that someone might come upon many, many years from now. And it’s anything that’s symbolic of National Wildlife Federation, or, you know, the one thing that you want to make sure gets into this time capsule that someone might find a million years from now.
LS – For me it would be easy. I think it’s the conservation pledge, you know, ‘I give my pledge as an American to save and faithfully defend from waste the natural resources of my country -- its air, soils and minerals, its forests and waters, and its wildlife.’ And, to me, you know, I said that pledge many times as a kid, at every club meeting. I mean, literally -- at every club meeting every sportsman would stand up and say that pledge.
JJ -- That’s the pledge of the National Wildlife …
LS – That was the pledge that the National Wildlife Federation had used for so many years. And it really was a commitment, as Americans, to do this thing. You’re making a promise. And, I think it’s a promise that’s rooted in the notion that a good person leaves an inheritance to their children’s children. And that’s really what this is about. This is about passing something on of value. It’s about not taking it all. It’s about restoring what you’ve touched. And it’s about not touching the things that you shouldn’t touch. And so, it’s … it is an intergenerational promise. And I … so, for me, that would be in that time capsule.
JJ -- The pledge. That’s great. How about you Tom, what would you put in the capsule?
TD -- Well, there’s … I’m much more of an organizing zealot, you know, I look for these processes of -- how do you inspire people to give - continue to give up of their volunteer time to fight this. And why I always remind people, you know, when they talk about National Wildlife Federation, I believe that a federation … what … that National Wildlife Federation embodies is the only effective grassroots tool that’s available to be able to make it happen. I just … I feel that it embodies, or exemplifies, volunteerism, and the processes that need to take place to be able to do that. I think the thing that I’m most proud of that falls under that category is the position that the National Wildlife Federation, essentially by itself, over the last 15 or 20 years, and their focus on -- in addition to our private lands our federal lands and our state inholdings -- the position the Federation has put itself in to helping indigenous people on tribal lands. And it’s many, many conservation organizations, many environmental organizations, that just didn’t want to deal with the ‘Indian’ issue. They didn’t want to deal with reservations. And yet, they embody some of
13
the most pristine wildlife habitat left in the United States. And the Federation, by itself, is there, working with the tribes. If there was any one thing that I’m most proud of the Federation for, it’s that.
JJ -- Hear a little bit more about that, Tom, in terms of the roll that National Wildlife Federation has played in really, building this partnership.
TD -- Well, it came as a gift, really. A young man, who was a lonely Fish & Wildlife biologist on the Wind River Indian Reservation, he picked up the phone and asked the Federation to help him with a specific set of problems that he had on the Wind River Indian Reservation. He went on to become a Board member of National Wildlife Federation, and then a Regional Vice-Chairman, Vice-President of National Wildlife Federation. And he opened many doors. To realize, you know, that there’s over a hundred million acres of tribal lands in the west alone. And Wind River is the same size as Yellowstone National Park, and probably is biologically more diverse than Yellowstone Park, and how could an organization who attests to be a protector and a conservationist of wildlife, not aid and assist those people, and not, you know, not help them help themselves. And in turn, they’ve helped us with stuff that we just couldn’t have done without them.
JJ -- I can imaging though it would be … I mean, not … I mean, a long term relationship … not an easy one … or, I mean, it just was very …
TD -- Well, there’s always been cultural barriers. That’s why a lot of people haven’t risked, you know, and said ‘we’re going to do this.’ And it wasn’t until, you know … their interest in wildlife and conservation of wildlife is the same as ours. And once that nexus, once those two lines crossed, I said ‘well, we can help you.’ And he [said] ‘you can help us? Let’s do it.’ And it was, you know, there was no promises made; there was no money flying across the table to do this or do that. It was just this shared interest in the conservation of wildlife. And you treat them the way you want to be treated, and it’s amazing what can happen.
LS – I think it’s particularly important today, as we look to the future, finding energy. The tribal community has, you know they were given those god-forsaken, wind-blown lands. And the same lands have a lot of potential for wind production. And I think we have an opportunity to really partner as we go forward in finding solutions to global warming, through helping the tribal leaders identify the right places to site wind, and to manage that wind energy, in a way that does not diminish their wildlife resources. And that’s a unique relationship that we can forge with them as we go forward, and we look forward to doing those kinds of things. And it will serve all of us to have those relationships.
JJ -- …for them, as well.
LS – Exactly.
14
JJ -- Yeah. Absolutely. So, just to sort of … we’ve got a few more minutes. I’m just wondering if there’s anything else that you might want to say, in terms of, you know, the richness of the history of this organization that we might not have talked about?
LS – Well, for me personally, I have very deep relationships with people who were part of our past, part of our present. And I have great hopes for those younger people who are coming along in our organization. And for me, a lot of this is solving problems, but it’s also what Tom mentioned earlier: it’s about relationships, and about how we interact with one another. And I … as a career path, I would encourage, particularly young people, to look at the conservation of our natural resources, the protection of our environment, as a path. Because you will not find any better people to work with, because they are so driven. And I think of a lawyer, who happens to be on our staff, who’s just got one of the most amazing pedigrees. This guy could be making a million dollars a year and instead he is … or more … he’s instead working for the National Wildlife Federation, defending, you know, defending wildlife and wildlife habitats. And so, for me, it’s the opportunity to work with some of the finest people you’ll ever encounter in life. And it’s about, at the end of the day, realizing that you’re making a difference that will last beyond your own life.
JJ -- Working with people like Tom.
TD -- Well, we’re both grandfathers now, and so it’s real easy for us to have to sit down and think, you know, how can we make wildlife conservation relevant to younger people. And, you know, some of the programs that are in the Federation now that is trying to get children out of doors, and some of these programs that I’d never really had my fingerprints on, I think it’s the answer. I mean, it has to be – because … there’s not a person working for National Wildlife Federation, whether a hunter, angler, botanist, naturalist, or whatever, that can’t point to a time in their past that the spring snapped for them. I don’t know, it might have been on a fall day on a brook, or it may have been, you know, walking with their parents or grandparents, where they just … all the connections started to occur for them, and they decided that there’s something more to this than just a walk in the woods. And they start making those connections. And organizations like National Wildlife Federation have to help make those connections. And I actually think that that’s one of our greatest challenges -- and one of our greatest causes.
JJ -- And we have a lot of history with that, in terms of … we haven’t talked a lot about the … our education, you know, through our kids magazines, and national wildlife [indecipherable] contribution that we’re making.
15
LS – It’s interesting, ‘cause if anybody has a question who National Wildlife Federation is, you just simply say ‘we have Ranger Rick and they understand. And so, I think that does, you know, convey a strong message: that we do care about education, and we are a conservation education organization. And that’s something were very proud of. And something that we’ve made a difference with.
MM -- Can I ask one question?
LS – Sure.
MM -- I just noticed Larry has been using a lot of history in his messages and so on -- referencing Darling and Carson, much more so than I noticed in the past. And I just wonder, is that purposeful? And how are you using history as a tool to convey messages?
LS – Well, I think, first of all it’s a great question. I think we often fail to recognize that we are standing – literally - on the shoulders of others. I recently had an opportunity to share with Al Gore the fact that Rachel Carson wrote a book called The Sea Around Us when she worked for the US Fish & Wildlife Service. And that book had a chapter in it called The Global Thermostat. And The Global Thermostat chapter was actually printed in Vogue magazine before it reached the presses for the book itself, but when that book hit the stands, it was on the best seller list for 86 weeks. And Rachel’s book was picked up by a guy by the name of Doctor Roger Revelle, who was running the Scripps Institute. And Roger wanted to invite Rachel to come out and study, ‘cause she suggested that ocean currents may be what’s in fact changing the climate. Because she saw the climate was in … changing, she said that we are witnessing a startling alteration of climate in our very day. And that was the year I was born -- in 1950. So Rachel was saying that at a time when few people were even thinking that. Well, she got Roger’s attention. And Roger actually started, along with Doctor Keeling, the Keeling Study on the Big Island, and started collecting the carbon dioxide data in 1958. He left Scripps and went to Harvard, where he was teaching in his latter years, and one of the youngsters that showed up in his class was this young Al Gore. And so, here’s Al Gore, just recently honored with the Nobel Peace Prize, who’s own pathway threads all the way back to Rachel Carson. And you remember what I shared earlier, that Rachel’s connection was … her change from being a naturalist to being an advocate - conservation advocate - was really at a National Wildlife annual meeting in 1938. All these things are connected. And I see history as helping us understand how these things play out, and to understand our roll at this time, and how it might have an impact as we look forward. I think by looking back we can avoid a lot of mistakes.
16
And we can also learn a lot of powerful lessons about how, working together, we can make a difference. So I think history’s very important.
JJ -- Thank you both, very much. That was really a pleasure.
17

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Tom Dougherty and Larry Schweiger – National Wildlife Federation
Interview on January 17, 2008
Jennifer Jones -- JJ
Larry Schweiger -- LS
Tom Dougherty -- TD
Mark Madison -- MM
JJ -- And he said, “Do not expect anyone to do the job for you. If you want coordination it is up to you. If you want an annual conference of federated wildlife interests that is also your privilege.” So can you speak to how this concept of a federation of wildlife interests has been a unique instrument in the efforts to protect wildlife, and wildlife habitat?
LS – Well, I think for me personally, Darling understood, probably better than anyone, that wildlife did not have a vote in congress; did not have a vote in the voting booth; did not have a voice in America -- without someone giving voice to that. And he also understood that people get together in groups, particularly local groups, and the need to consolidate all these local voices into a single movement was, I think, uniquely ‘Ding’s’ vision. He once said that ‘a thousand stallions, unconnected, could not move a baby carriage.’ To me, that’s the vision of thousands of these local groups out there, all trying to get something done, but not being connected. And so, the connection, in his mind, was the National Wildlife Federation.
JJ -- And he really did, just, spawn this Federation, where so many groups that were, just, in their own small little pockets, decided to come together and really be the voice of wildlife.
TD -- You know, the ‘Dirty ‘30’s.’ I mean, that era when all of this transpired. I mean … following the Dust Bowl, and lots of things, that had a tremendous impact on wildlife. One of which was over harvesting by hunters, you know, ‘cause we were starting to urbanize. And in the rural communities, you know, the wildlife was there for them. And so with the advent of the science -- and wildlife science had come forward -- recognize it -- we could no longer over harvest. So a lot of these unconnected thousand stallions were organized at a very grassroots level that - sometimes even at a state level. In fact, many of our affiliates are older than National Wildlife Federation -- under the veil of ‘New Mexico Game Protectors Association,’ or whatever. And ‘Ding’ Darling recognized a bunch of under-utilized potential at the grassroots, and saw the need to harness those groups and organizations to effect federal legislation. And to effect, you know, big, big tasks -- like Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and, you know, “speak for the ducks,” which was a famous quote of his. And he was seeing it happen at a local level -- whether it was
1
New Mexico or New Hampshire -- but it wasn’t extending, it wasn’t reaching as far as where it needed to, to effect federal legislation and federal laws.
JJ -- And that’s what he was really talking about when he said ‘you can’t expect anyone to do the job for you,” in terms of protecting what you really care about. You have to organize together as a federation to make it happen.
LS – Well, I think Tom makes a really good point. That ‘Ding’ was actually looking at the big picture of things. He was not, you know, they could do the little things alone, but if you want to do the really big things, you had to get together to do that. And that’s what he was talking about, looking at some pretty big opportunities in those days to really make a huge difference for wildlife. And so he was inspired by the big things, and wanted them to work together to achieve those big things. And so, I think it really was gathering groups of concerned hunters, anglers, and others -- and it was ‘others’ -- there were a lot of ‘others’ that ‘Ding’ had in mind – together, to make a difference for wildlife in a major way.
JJ -- So, what about those ‘big things’? You know, when you think about it, and all the years that National Wildlife Federation has been America’s conservation organization, what about those ‘big things’ that really couldn’t have happened without this federated approach to protecting wildlife?
LS – Well, if you look at ‘Ding’s’ original artwork, you see a lot of what was going on in his mind. For example, in 1949 he did a cartoon that showed the planet running out of oil -- you know -- with the big oil derrick on top of the planet, spurting oil. And he also understood the implications -- not the way we understand them today -- but certainly implications of energy development. And [the] National Wildlife Federation was one of those lead organizations in reforming mining in America. The Mining Act of 1977 was a thing that the Federation did; the various waterfowl programs; and, you know, the Duck Stamp itself; the Dingle / Johnson / Pittman / Roberts Act; those were all Acts that were initiated by ‘Ding’ Darling, and by the Federation.
JJ -- And there was a lot of effort, from the very beginning, on endangered species. Like, initially, it was the Florida key deer; and then it was the Kodiak bear; and then the grizzly; and just a long, long list of species that were threatened, that National Wildlife Federation … You know, Thomas Allen talks about the organization as the wildlife sentinel. [It] really is the organization that’s been standing at the post for endangered and threatened species, from the very beginning.
LS – Oh, the original Endangered Species Act was, you know, an effort of the National Wildlife Federation, along with some key lawmakers --
2
Congressman Dingle, for example -- still here, was one of the key leaders behind that. The Marine Mammals Act. The Alaska Lands program. I mean, you can just go on and on over the years. Each generation had its own successes, and each generation contributed to the overall fabric of what we have today, in terms of wildlife and conservation programs.
JJ -- You know I find it really interesting that he used the term “privilege” when he said, “If you want an annual conference of federated wildlife interests that is also your privilege.” What … how do you feel about that term “privilege” in terms of the way that he spoke about it?
LS – Well, Darling understood that the ‘right of assemblage’ was a privilege that we have as Americans. And he understood that, just as we have a ‘right of free speech,’ we have a ‘right of assemblage.’ And that ‘right of assemblage’ was an important part of our constitution. And an important gift that we have, as people who live in a democratic system. And it’s a privilege that we have, frankly, have ignored in recent years. The assemblage of Americans together is something that’s on the wane. And it’s a sad moment, because it’s really important, to have a healthy country, to bring people together to hammer out … to solve problems, to gather together, to be of one voice. Those are all very important concepts that underpin the nature of a federation. And certainly of this Federation.
JJ -- And that’s really been successful over the years. I’m sure … you’ve been to how many annual meetings where all of the affiliates come together and speak in one voice in the whole process, in terms of resolutions, and setting the policy for the organization? That’s really acting on the ‘right of assembly’ I would imagine, yes?
TD -- I’ve often said that in Webster’s, or Funk and Wagnall Dictionary, when the … look up word “federation” they should actually have a picture of [the] National Wildlife Federation, because it’s the easiest way to explain what a federation is. It has operated as a federation -- as clunky as that may have been for staff members or Board members -- that assemblage of those grassroots entities, in helping formulate -- not helping formulate -- formulating the conservation policy of the organization, has been, you know, a fundamental principle of being born at the grassroots level, through this assemblage, through this privilege of assemblage, of all of these organizations, whether they be necessarily hunting -- and they largely are hunting and angling organizations – [or] state organizations that primarily focus on the conservation of wildlife, and they come and formulate that policy, that then National Wildlife Federation staff and Board are directed to implement in a pretty … as well as the affiliates themselves. I mean, it doesn’t leave them out of the equation. It isn’t ‘here, this is for you, go make this happen.’ They have those responsibilities at the grassroots level. So even though the idea, a policy idea that was born in Colorado -- game ranching or something like that -- then it spreads a
3
message to these other state affiliates that are having similar problems. And, quite honestly, most of the really great impacts of this assemblage of organizations at the grassroots level is the by-product as it goes into these other states. A lot of times it spills over. I can’t really think of a piece of national legislation that has occurred since 1960 that National Wildlife Federation didn’t have its fingerprints all over. And in some cases we wrote it. Now, that’s not to say there wasn’t other organizations, there wasn’t other entities; but me being a westerner, certainly Federal Land Management Policy Act -- FLPMA , NEPA -- all of those policies -- NWF basically wrote that stuff. Many of the wilderness actions that took place, had it not been for organizations like Montana Wildlife Federation or Nebraska Wildlife Federation, there wouldn’t have been wilderness in those states. And so, they’ve played a huge role in federal land management and federal land protection, using the tools that were drafted in the ‘60s and ‘70s, of which NWF was … in reality Congress hadn’t … in the state legislatures … in most of the states, if there’s a connection to wildlife or fisheries, the legislative body -- be it Congress or a state legislature -- they don’t move forward without working with either NWF or the state affiliates, because they know that that’s a focus of interest of that group. And many of them are very powerful, and very strong.
JJ -- And very talented in terms of understanding what really needs to happen to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat. Yeah. It’s quite stunning when, you know, you say that everything has National Wildlife Federation’s imprint on it. That’s truly remarkable. I can’t think or another organization that you can say that about. I don’t think there is. You know Larry, I wanted to spend a moment to talk about your life here at National Wildlife Federation. You’ve had a couple of ‘tours of duty’ and now you’re the President and CEO of the organization, so I’m sure that you’ve seen a lot of changes, a lot of things that have changed. And then some core things that might have just stayed the same in terms of how National Wildlife Federation does its work. I was just wondering if you wanted to comment a little bit about, you know, what you’ve seen through the years, in terms of all of the time that you’ve spent with the organization. What’s changed? What’s fundamentally stayed the same about how National Wildlife Federation …?
LS – Well, I think, as I look over my own lifetime with the Federation, my mom and dad were active in our Pennsylvania affiliate, and particularly at the local and regional level, but I think the thing that stayed the same through the years is the volunteers who have been connected with the Federation. I remember as a youngster going to club meeting with my father and mother, and having very lively debates over whether great horned owls ought to be protected, you know, or whether there ought to be a bounty on red and grey fox, and this sort of thing. And they were very lively and brought people together to talk about these things and, you know, either endorse what the wildlife agencies were recommending, or to ask questions about it, to understand why they were doing that, and to be a part of that process. And at the end of the day, own that outcome. And so I think that’s continued up until today. I think what’s
4
changed is the risk the wildlife face. Today it’s so much greater than it was when I was a youngster. I mean, we saw the beginnings of urban sprawl, and the interstate highway system -- I grew up before the interstate highway system, I was a youngster when that was being planned and actually executed -- so seeing that change was significant for all of us as we saw the landscape change. But today, what we see is, you know, planetary change actually having a huge impact on wildlife. I mean, the most recent science warns that, you know, somewhere between 17 and 39 percent of the species will become extinct, or on the road to extinction, if we allow the temperature on the earth to go up 2.6 degrees centigrade. If we go higher than that, we may see 40 to 70 percent of the total species on the planet become extinct or on the road to extinction. That, to me, is a terrifying thought. And it’s far beyond anything that ‘Ding’ Darling and his peers would have been able to comprehend in their day, because they were looking at the loss of wetlands, and the threats from agricultural mismanagement, and the urban problems, and obviously other things that were related to more localized damage. But, you know, we’re seeing the devastation on a scale that’s unprecedented in human history.
JJ -- It’s really all of that that they saw -- and more.
LS – They did. I mean, they were concerned that we have a comprehensive national and international plan. I mean, ‘Ding’ was working with folks in Mexico, and Canada as well, so they saw the -- particularly for migratory waterfowl -- the need to work together. But, I mean, today, we need to work together with every nation on the planet to solve problems that we’re all creating, and we more than some others.
JJ -- You know, I think also sort of unique to National Wildlife Federation’s history is what Thomas Allen, again in the book The Guardian Of The Wild talks about, the organization’s long standing endorsement of professional wildlife management. The fact that the organization has really worked side by side, not only with the affiliates, but with wildlife managers around the country. I mean, that’s really unique too, in terms of how, you know, the approach that National Wildlife Federation has taken in all the work that it has done at the national level. Is there something you might want to say about our connections with wildlife agencies and the partnerships that we forged over the years, in terms of getting what we’ve gotten done.
LS – Well, ‘Ding’ darling was an interesting person because he was not a wildlife professional himself, but he believed very strongly in the profession of wildlife management, and the notion that good science should be driving our wildlife policy decisions. And we hold to that to this day. I mean we’re relying on the top scientists, whether were talking about climate change, or whether were talking about proper management
5
for a given species. You know, it all comes right down to: is there good science and what does the good science tell us. And therefore, how do we adjust our management strategies, how do we adjust our actions, to insure that that species survives. And we make those judgments based on good science. And so, facts are friendly; the science is our friend. We need to incorporate good science into our decision making. It shouldn’t just be a group of people sitting around deciding, willy-nilly, whether something needs to happen or not. We should really be rooted in, and listing to, the science -- and to the best science that we have available at the time of decision making. So I think it’s very important.
JJ -- So, Tom, talking about best science, when we talk about something that you were involved in, which was … I mean, I remember the moment when we finally were able to convince all the powers that be that wolves could, in fact, be re-introduced into Yellowstone. And that was in 1995 -- 14 wolves from Canada were released into Yellowstone. And you were the only representative from the conservation community that was invited there, to witness the release of these wolves. It must have been just a really amazing moment for you.
TD -- Well, it was. It was one of those ‘once in a lifetime’ moments, and I … I mean, I was invited as a representative of all of the NGOs that had worked on it. And I had become very close with Bruce Babbitt and others that were principally involved in … and Molly Beatty when she was still alive … and it was a very heady moment. And the three states concerned were Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. And, had it not been for the state affiliate organizations in all three of those states acquiescing and saying, you know, that this … there may be political reasons for us not to be jumping up and down with joy over this, it is very important wildlife moment. And they allowed it, and in many cases promoted it to happen. And it was, again, those connections, you know, Larry mentioned -- our promotion of good science, and working very closely with state game and fish agencies. Well, it’s not rocket science. I mean, their constituency is hunters and anglers – they’re the people who buy their license. But it needs to be more, and in this evolving change that’s happening, you know, where the demand for hunting, and angling now, are actually diminishing, the importance of non-game programs and urban wildlife programs are increasing so greatly. So, there’s almost this natural alliance between hunters and anglers, who believe in the conservation of wildlife through the Federation, and with the state game and fish agencies. And so, there’s many, many parallels that exist -- as I said in the very beginning, some of these affiliates were far older -- formed before NWF was. And they were formed, in a large part, through the encouragement of a lot of these state game and fish agencies that needed this grassroots fort. But, you know, there’s been many kind of evolutionary things -- the re-introduction of black-footed ferrets, the re-introduction of wolves -- that wouldn’t have happened had it not been hunters and anglers and National Wildlife Federation, and other conservation organizations, saying, ‘you know, this is the right thing to do. We made a mistake when we eliminated wolves from the Lower 48 states. And now let’s rectify that mistake.’ And, you know, it’s … now people who are not hunters and anglers necessarily, are reaping the benefit of listening to
6
wolves howl in Lamar Valley. And Yellowstone Park is receiving the benefit of being a destination point for people who want to see that.
JJ -- Yeah. Thrilling. I just can’t imagine actually being able to witness it, to hear it. Really, really exciting. You also were really involved with the work to save the whooping crane. Can you talk a little bit about that?
TD -- I was involved and still am involved.
JJ -- A long time, right? 30 years it’s been.
TD -- Yeah, it’s been a long time. Yeah. No … and up ‘till now, that’s been a very successful story. We now have more whooping cranes than we’ve ever had before. But at the same time, Aransas, their destination point, where they spend the winters, is under some terrible, terrible threats of rising sea level. And I had a meeting last week, and more meetings, on, you know, what are we facing here? What are we going to do with whooping cranes? The sand hill cranes which is … have greatly benefited from the whooping crane studies, and we now know more about sand hills than … which is another phenomenal wildlife story, and the Nebraska Wildlife Federation and National Wildlife Federation has been very, very involved in the protection of critical habitats for those species. And will continue to be. And we’re worried to death about Aransas and all that, but we may be at the pinnacle of success -- I hope not, but we may be at this pinnacle of success this year, with whooping cranes.
JJ -- But there was that moment, I really … I have to say, I’ll never forget it, when you showed me that picture of the flock of whooping cranes.
TD -- Oh, yeah!
JJ -- And your face just lit up. That it was so significant. That there was that many flying together. And that was really, just years and years of effort to get to that one moment.
TD -- Yeah. Well, the original program – we’re getting way off -- but the original program, you know, we had surrogates, where sand hill cranes parents would, you know, teach whooping cranes how to fly, and they would fly to some of the same habitats, and wasn’t highly successful because those birds got so imprinted on sand hills that they wouldn’t breed properly. So there was modifications that were made, but that picture, when I saw it, was … and this was a picture of seven, I think, sand hill cranes … or whooping cranes … traveling together - flying together. I think that’s the largest number that they’ve ever seen … of whooping cranes traveling as a unit like that. Yeah, that’s a great picture.
MM -- Did you get the rights to that picture? 7
JJ -- Well, yeah, we, you know, unfortunately, the picture’s not of a quality that we can reproduce at a high …
[Overlapping voices/indecipherable]
TD -- Oh, that’s too bad. Gosh.
[Overlapping voices/indecipherable]
Tom – ‘Cause I think it was … just we started a program on the Platte River called “Whooper Watch.” And this was a little … a lady who was a letter carrier, and so that was … that’s her volunteer job -- is to watch for whooping cranes, ‘cause we need to document that the Platte River is still important habitat for whooping cranes. There’s lots of reasons for that, but … And … so she was a member of this little volunteer program. And she probably had -- like I carry around -- one of those disposable cameras or …
[Overlapping voices/indecipherable]
?? -- Was a great … great picture.
JJ -- It was. And it was wonderful just to get into the email chain, connecting people with her, and everyone just sharing so much excitement about it.
TD -- Yeah. Yeah.
LS – It was very exciting.
JJ -- So there’s probably a lot of very exciting moments in your history here with National Wildlife Federation. I mean, if you can think of about those moments where it was really – “yeah, we finally did it, we finally did it.” Is there anything that really …
LS – There’s so many stories about either National Wildlife Federation or a state affiliate working to make a difference. For example, we were down in Louisiana recently in the Jean Lafitte National Park. It’s an outgrowth of the tenacity of Frank Ararat, one of our volunteers from Louisiana, who just wouldn’t let it alone. I mean, he’s a school teacher and for 24 years he did slide shows all over Louisiana, and finally convinced Senator Bennett Johnson that this needed to happen. And that national park is open now for others to enjoy; and it’s a part of that remnant system that’s in great trouble; because someone made up their mind that they’re going to make it happen. And that, to me, is … the real exciting part, is getting people together who get stubborn about something and just grab onto it and make it happen. And I think, today, we have opportunities to do that. And I always look forward to working
8
with volunteers. And I think that’s the real essence of the Federation, is having those volunteers out there who just give of their own time and energy to make a difference for the future of wildlife. Darling often would say ‘there are two kinds of people in this world -- those who care about wildlife, and those who don’t. And we’re after those who care about wildlife.’ And so, he saw a ‘big tent’, and bringing people together, with the common thread that we care about wildlife. And so, that, to me, is the … it’s a reoccurring story and I hope it continues to reoccur as we move forward, because we certainly need more help today than ever.
JJ -- Yeah. I mean, that vision of the ‘big tent’, I think the organization has really carried that forward in a very significant way, ever since he had the vision. It’s really been sort of the key ingredient of the success of the organization.
LS – The other thing that Darling did, that’s hard to capture today, is that he was a very inspiring, compelling speaker. When he gave his first talk in 1939, in Baltimore, as the new assemblage … and I should tell you that 39 state organizations showed up to be a part of the original incorporation, so within two years they had almost a full complement of state affiliates. But one of the young women in the audience that day was Rachel Carson. And Rachel came into that room as a naturalist. She was, you know she was trained in various schooling, was an employee of the US Fish & Wildlife Service. She was a naturalist up until that point, when she heard ‘Ding’ Darling give that conservation -- very powerful conservation speech -- she turned around and wrote her first -- what I’d call really, you know, on point conservation article, within four days of hearing ‘Ding’ Darling speak. And if you read her writing there, she truly was reflecting what ‘Ding’ Darling had said just a few days before that. So Darling, at that meeting, inspired Rachel Carson to become a much more proactive conservationist. And so, that’s the kind of catalytic personality he had, you know, to get people to do things. And that was his strength.
JJ -- Yeah. That’s really his legacy. And there’s people who have carried that on, in terms of inspiring more and more people to keep, you know, keep fighting the good fight.
LS – Absolutely. Absolutely. And at every one of our annual meetings we ought to be asking the question of the volunteers that come to our meetings, you know, ‘were you inspired by this meeting? Did this, did the people that you heard, and the things that you saw, and the connections that you made here, inspire you to go back and make a greater difference?’ And that’s …that really should be the convening thrust of every one of our gatherings.
9
JJ -- When, you know. when you think about all of the choices that the organization has had to make over the years, in terms of it’s governing structure, and in terms of the decisions it makes about program and policy, and have a magazine / not have a magazine, should we have a kids magazine, you know, all of those really significant choice points along the way, is there any critical juncture that you think the organization came to that really was, like, the moment in time that there was a decision that really was key to the success of the organization, in terms of a policy decision, or choice around program or …
LS – There have been several of those moments. I think, early on, in the days of Tom Kimball, the decision to start the magazines Ranger Rick and National Wildlife, and then later International Wildlife magazine, those decisions and the decision to become a serious organization allowed us to build a staff at the Federation. Because, up until that point, we had only a small handful of employees, and it was when we did that, that we were able to then raise the revenue to start hiring lobbyists, and scientists, and then later lawyers. And I think that was also another decision point. We had Secretary Stewart Udall on our Board, and he believed - very strongly - that we ought to begin to challenge and litigate some of the federal policies that were being advanced in Washington. And some of it was backtracking on some important decisions that had been made earlier. But it was Udall who first argued that we needed to open a field office in the west -- it happened to be in Colorado -- to be a voice for wildlife, and to actually start filing some lawsuits to block some of the bad things that people wanted to do on public lands, and encroaching on wildlife in other places. And I think that was a real turn point. And, you know there are others. And I think over time we’ll see those more clearly. More recent decisions that have been made probably will be seen as turn points as well. I think the Federation, in the 70s, under Doctor Jay Hair, decided to be much more engaged in policies that related to energy, and into policies that related to pollution directly. We were very active in the … in some of the pollution formulation … anti pollution formulation that occurred in the 70s and 80s. But, you know, the Acid Rain Control Bill was one that came out of the Federation’s efforts, because it was a so called ‘cap and trade’ program. That idea originated at the Federation, because we were looking for reasonable way to solve problems without creating another ‘command and control’ program. And I think that’s been transformational. There are just a number of examples like that. And it … gives … you have to have a little time to see the more recent turning points, and how they develop. But I think we’re continuing to find new solutions to old problems. And we’re seeing new ways of operating as an institution.
JJ -- And the piece around the litigation, I think, too, in terms of just the choices that we made around that, in terms of -- what are the lawsuits that we filed, and how involved that we would get in that, have been pretty significant.
10
LS – Absolutely. And Tom knows, in the West, how many of those lawsuits saved really important wildlife habitats. And more importantly, set precedents, and caused the agencies to do things that they otherwise would not be able to do. And this is not the professionals, but the political influence that was occurring at the time. You know, we were able to stave off a lot of damage when Secretary Watt wanted to start backtracking on a lot of important programs in wildlife habitat protection efforts.
JJ -- Tom, can you think of something that, really, you know …
TD -- Well, there are a lot of examples, and there’s a lot of great success stories. If I was to make a general statement it would be conservation organizations and the environmental organizations have basically been fighting a battle in a defensive posture for a long, long time. The great successes that have been made by National Wildlife Federation were offensive in nature. The wolves are an example of that. And choosing to tool up with different tools … anymore, I don’t know how you … you know, how you can be taken seriously without a litigation arm to be able to back it up. National Wildlife Federation has recently endorsed and sponsored the formation of a C-4 organization, to add another tool to its arsenal in which it will advance a lot of its causes in the direct political arena. Ultimately, the way the system works in America today, if you’re not a player in that game, then you’re playing with one arm tied behind your back. And so, when the Federation has advanced in these offensive postures and increasing its arsenal of tools … and you’d asked earlier about the … not only the great successes, but what do you remember most … you know, everybody likes to be around people who think like they do. And being around with the staff and the volunteers in the Federation and their unselfish behavior, as it relates to wildlife, the conservation of wildlife, it … that’s really heady stuff. You’re not going to get rich in the conservation movement. I mean, it’s just not going to happen. And so, there’s something more that’s needed. We have many people on our staff that had they joined the corporate world that would be … would have made their mark financially. And they didn’t do that because they believe in this ideal of giving back to the earth in a better shape than when they came. And the esprit de corps that exists with people who think like you do is not something that you can place a value on, but is very, very real. And it, I think, is what pushes many people through the 20 / 30 / 40 year career in this business. Because it’s … it’s tough. I mean, you face many more disappointments than you do successes. And you just can’t give up. I mean, you just have to stay there and fight the next fight.
JJ -- Yeah. Persistence. You know, in ‘Ding’ Darling’s speech that year, he talked about the wealth of the natural resources, and how foolish we are to think that we … our material wealth is really what will sustain us. That it really is the wealth of the natural resources that brings to us that satisfaction that can only come from the protection of the natural world.
11
LS – Well, I think Americans, particularly, have taken for granted that we have a … just a wonderful collection of extraordinary pieces of real estate. And we have been neglectful, frankly, of those great places. And … but I think, what is so compelling about what Tom said … and Tom incidentally is a great example. I mean, this guy worked for many years as a volunteer, long before he ever got his first paycheck doing this stuff. I mean, he … and he’s retiring here at the end of this month, and I suspect that Tom will not change his pace whatsoever. He’ll just quit getting a paycheck from National Wildlife Federation. So … but, that tells you a lot about the kind of people that are woven into this fabric. And at the end of the day we’re going to be out-funded, we’re going to be out-gunned, in terms of the abilities of these other rascals to put up money. But we can win, because we have these stubborn, absolutely determined people, like Tom, who will not give up the things that they care about. And so passion has a … has a value that runs deeper, and much more powerfully, than some of the slickest ad campaigns you can find. And that’s what we have. We have the caring people with deep passions about wildlife. And it’s their voice, and it’s their willingness to be stubborn about those things that they care about, that will ultimately save the great places that are at risk at this point in time. and it’s that hope of … welling up, that spirit, in so many Americans who do care about nature -- and there are a lot of people who do care -- and so those who care need to come together, and stand firm, and stand forcefully, and be willing to do whatever it takes to get this job done that we have today. And that will be the reinvigoration of this movement, this assemblage, this ‘great tent’ that ‘Ding’ Darling talked about, and so many have followed behind over the years. And that will keep it going.
JJ -- ‘Cause it is that passion. I mean, that’s what’s really contagious.
LS – It is.
JJ -- You just have to be around, you know, at an annual meeting, and you just feel it in your bones, you know, there’s just so much energy and passion for the work, it’s just … I’ve never experienced a setting like that.
LS – And I would say at every annual meeting, and I’ve been to more than I’d like to admit, I go away afterwards … because your adrenalin is so used up, you go away and you have to recover for a couple of days. Because it is that … it is that forceful, and that impactful, as an experience.
JJ -- Yeah. Well, thank goodness.
LS – Yeah.
12
JJ -- That kind of commitment’s there. So, let’s talk a little bit about something, just, we might want to imagine that both of you are sitting together and you’ve decided that you’re going to put together this time capsule and you’re going to bury it somewhere out in one of your favorite places in the wilderness. And you’re each going to put something in there about National Wildlife Federation that someone might come upon many, many years from now. And it’s anything that’s symbolic of National Wildlife Federation, or, you know, the one thing that you want to make sure gets into this time capsule that someone might find a million years from now.
LS – For me it would be easy. I think it’s the conservation pledge, you know, ‘I give my pledge as an American to save and faithfully defend from waste the natural resources of my country -- its air, soils and minerals, its forests and waters, and its wildlife.’ And, to me, you know, I said that pledge many times as a kid, at every club meeting. I mean, literally -- at every club meeting every sportsman would stand up and say that pledge.
JJ -- That’s the pledge of the National Wildlife …
LS – That was the pledge that the National Wildlife Federation had used for so many years. And it really was a commitment, as Americans, to do this thing. You’re making a promise. And, I think it’s a promise that’s rooted in the notion that a good person leaves an inheritance to their children’s children. And that’s really what this is about. This is about passing something on of value. It’s about not taking it all. It’s about restoring what you’ve touched. And it’s about not touching the things that you shouldn’t touch. And so, it’s … it is an intergenerational promise. And I … so, for me, that would be in that time capsule.
JJ -- The pledge. That’s great. How about you Tom, what would you put in the capsule?
TD -- Well, there’s … I’m much more of an organizing zealot, you know, I look for these processes of -- how do you inspire people to give - continue to give up of their volunteer time to fight this. And why I always remind people, you know, when they talk about National Wildlife Federation, I believe that a federation … what … that National Wildlife Federation embodies is the only effective grassroots tool that’s available to be able to make it happen. I just … I feel that it embodies, or exemplifies, volunteerism, and the processes that need to take place to be able to do that. I think the thing that I’m most proud of that falls under that category is the position that the National Wildlife Federation, essentially by itself, over the last 15 or 20 years, and their focus on -- in addition to our private lands our federal lands and our state inholdings -- the position the Federation has put itself in to helping indigenous people on tribal lands. And it’s many, many conservation organizations, many environmental organizations, that just didn’t want to deal with the ‘Indian’ issue. They didn’t want to deal with reservations. And yet, they embody some of
13
the most pristine wildlife habitat left in the United States. And the Federation, by itself, is there, working with the tribes. If there was any one thing that I’m most proud of the Federation for, it’s that.
JJ -- Hear a little bit more about that, Tom, in terms of the roll that National Wildlife Federation has played in really, building this partnership.
TD -- Well, it came as a gift, really. A young man, who was a lonely Fish & Wildlife biologist on the Wind River Indian Reservation, he picked up the phone and asked the Federation to help him with a specific set of problems that he had on the Wind River Indian Reservation. He went on to become a Board member of National Wildlife Federation, and then a Regional Vice-Chairman, Vice-President of National Wildlife Federation. And he opened many doors. To realize, you know, that there’s over a hundred million acres of tribal lands in the west alone. And Wind River is the same size as Yellowstone National Park, and probably is biologically more diverse than Yellowstone Park, and how could an organization who attests to be a protector and a conservationist of wildlife, not aid and assist those people, and not, you know, not help them help themselves. And in turn, they’ve helped us with stuff that we just couldn’t have done without them.
JJ -- I can imaging though it would be … I mean, not … I mean, a long term relationship … not an easy one … or, I mean, it just was very …
TD -- Well, there’s always been cultural barriers. That’s why a lot of people haven’t risked, you know, and said ‘we’re going to do this.’ And it wasn’t until, you know … their interest in wildlife and conservation of wildlife is the same as ours. And once that nexus, once those two lines crossed, I said ‘well, we can help you.’ And he [said] ‘you can help us? Let’s do it.’ And it was, you know, there was no promises made; there was no money flying across the table to do this or do that. It was just this shared interest in the conservation of wildlife. And you treat them the way you want to be treated, and it’s amazing what can happen.
LS – I think it’s particularly important today, as we look to the future, finding energy. The tribal community has, you know they were given those god-forsaken, wind-blown lands. And the same lands have a lot of potential for wind production. And I think we have an opportunity to really partner as we go forward in finding solutions to global warming, through helping the tribal leaders identify the right places to site wind, and to manage that wind energy, in a way that does not diminish their wildlife resources. And that’s a unique relationship that we can forge with them as we go forward, and we look forward to doing those kinds of things. And it will serve all of us to have those relationships.
JJ -- …for them, as well.
LS – Exactly.
14
JJ -- Yeah. Absolutely. So, just to sort of … we’ve got a few more minutes. I’m just wondering if there’s anything else that you might want to say, in terms of, you know, the richness of the history of this organization that we might not have talked about?
LS – Well, for me personally, I have very deep relationships with people who were part of our past, part of our present. And I have great hopes for those younger people who are coming along in our organization. And for me, a lot of this is solving problems, but it’s also what Tom mentioned earlier: it’s about relationships, and about how we interact with one another. And I … as a career path, I would encourage, particularly young people, to look at the conservation of our natural resources, the protection of our environment, as a path. Because you will not find any better people to work with, because they are so driven. And I think of a lawyer, who happens to be on our staff, who’s just got one of the most amazing pedigrees. This guy could be making a million dollars a year and instead he is … or more … he’s instead working for the National Wildlife Federation, defending, you know, defending wildlife and wildlife habitats. And so, for me, it’s the opportunity to work with some of the finest people you’ll ever encounter in life. And it’s about, at the end of the day, realizing that you’re making a difference that will last beyond your own life.
JJ -- Working with people like Tom.
TD -- Well, we’re both grandfathers now, and so it’s real easy for us to have to sit down and think, you know, how can we make wildlife conservation relevant to younger people. And, you know, some of the programs that are in the Federation now that is trying to get children out of doors, and some of these programs that I’d never really had my fingerprints on, I think it’s the answer. I mean, it has to be – because … there’s not a person working for National Wildlife Federation, whether a hunter, angler, botanist, naturalist, or whatever, that can’t point to a time in their past that the spring snapped for them. I don’t know, it might have been on a fall day on a brook, or it may have been, you know, walking with their parents or grandparents, where they just … all the connections started to occur for them, and they decided that there’s something more to this than just a walk in the woods. And they start making those connections. And organizations like National Wildlife Federation have to help make those connections. And I actually think that that’s one of our greatest challenges -- and one of our greatest causes.
JJ -- And we have a lot of history with that, in terms of … we haven’t talked a lot about the … our education, you know, through our kids magazines, and national wildlife [indecipherable] contribution that we’re making.
15
LS – It’s interesting, ‘cause if anybody has a question who National Wildlife Federation is, you just simply say ‘we have Ranger Rick and they understand. And so, I think that does, you know, convey a strong message: that we do care about education, and we are a conservation education organization. And that’s something were very proud of. And something that we’ve made a difference with.
MM -- Can I ask one question?
LS – Sure.
MM -- I just noticed Larry has been using a lot of history in his messages and so on -- referencing Darling and Carson, much more so than I noticed in the past. And I just wonder, is that purposeful? And how are you using history as a tool to convey messages?
LS – Well, I think, first of all it’s a great question. I think we often fail to recognize that we are standing – literally - on the shoulders of others. I recently had an opportunity to share with Al Gore the fact that Rachel Carson wrote a book called The Sea Around Us when she worked for the US Fish & Wildlife Service. And that book had a chapter in it called The Global Thermostat. And The Global Thermostat chapter was actually printed in Vogue magazine before it reached the presses for the book itself, but when that book hit the stands, it was on the best seller list for 86 weeks. And Rachel’s book was picked up by a guy by the name of Doctor Roger Revelle, who was running the Scripps Institute. And Roger wanted to invite Rachel to come out and study, ‘cause she suggested that ocean currents may be what’s in fact changing the climate. Because she saw the climate was in … changing, she said that we are witnessing a startling alteration of climate in our very day. And that was the year I was born -- in 1950. So Rachel was saying that at a time when few people were even thinking that. Well, she got Roger’s attention. And Roger actually started, along with Doctor Keeling, the Keeling Study on the Big Island, and started collecting the carbon dioxide data in 1958. He left Scripps and went to Harvard, where he was teaching in his latter years, and one of the youngsters that showed up in his class was this young Al Gore. And so, here’s Al Gore, just recently honored with the Nobel Peace Prize, who’s own pathway threads all the way back to Rachel Carson. And you remember what I shared earlier, that Rachel’s connection was … her change from being a naturalist to being an advocate - conservation advocate - was really at a National Wildlife annual meeting in 1938. All these things are connected. And I see history as helping us understand how these things play out, and to understand our roll at this time, and how it might have an impact as we look forward. I think by looking back we can avoid a lot of mistakes.
16
And we can also learn a lot of powerful lessons about how, working together, we can make a difference. So I think history’s very important.
JJ -- Thank you both, very much. That was really a pleasure.
17